LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2019, Page 234

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

234

II. THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

the work of all in the body, all who are part of the royal
priesthood. At least that is how Irenaeus, Mathetes and
the early church understood it. Irenaeus is known for
his strong support of the episcopal leadership in the
church, but he also thought highly of the wider number
of Christians, of those led and served. As he wrote, “It is
not possible to name the number of the gifts which the
Church, scattered throughout the world, has received
from God.”73
While Tertullian understood that there are those certainly who serve publicly, he saw all people, touched by
the Holy Spirit, as priests offering spiritual sacrifices to
God. He referred to all Christians when he said, “We are
the true adorers and the true priests praying in the spirit,
sacrifice … which assuredly He has required, which He
has looked forward to for Himself.”74 For Tertullian, the
Church is composed of spiritual people offering a spiritual sacrifice of prayer and exercising a spiritual priesthood, living in a discipline that applies to all priests, that
is, to all believers. So, for example, Tertullian expects that
the same high standards that were applied to those in
the public ministry when it came to marriage, held also
for all Christians. He asks rhetorically, “Are not even we
laics [laity] priests?”75 The Church does not equal clergy
for Tertullian, but rather consists of all believers. And
while they certainly want the public office to be filled,
Tertullian allows that “where there is no joint session of
the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize and are
priest, alone for yourself.”76 We should not see this as
an invitation to “every man for himself.” Rather it sets
the bar high in expecting much of believers. “Therefore
if you have the rights of a priest in your own person in
cases of necessity, it behooves you to have likewise the
discipline of a priest, whenever it may be necessary to
have the right of a priest.”77
Tertullian expects much from the laity.78 In fact, it
was his dislike for the growing division between laity
and clergy that pushed him finally in the direction of
Montanism with its ultra-strict morality. And, while Tertullian would eventually be condemned by the church,
that condemnation was not because of his emphasis on
the priesthood of the laity or his warnings about clergy

who acted as if their office made them superior to the
laity. Eastwood notes that those who followed the lead
of Montanus were not initially forced out of the church
for false teaching. They walked away on their own and
were subsequently condemned as heretics after they
separated themselves from the church.79 Tertullian, as
noted above, rightly taught that laymen, like clergy, were
subject to Christ’s words about divorce and remarriage
(Matt. 5:31–32; 19:3–9 and parallels) because laymen were
also priests — “Are not even we laics priests?” — and
thus also referred to the validity of Baptism performed
by a layman.80 Tertullian was not alone in the patristic
era seeking the high road for believers. That was simply
expected of those who were marked by the spiritual
priesthood described in the New Testament.
Similar to Tertullian, Origen, another early author
whose false teachings were eventually condemned,
referred to the royal priesthood — a teaching that was
never condemned. He states matter-of-factly: “For all
who have been anointed with the unction of the sacred
chrism have been made priests.”81
Eastwood points out that none of the early church
fathers mentioned here dealt with the spiritual or universal priesthood extensively or exhaustively. Instead,
they commented on the concept as they encountered
particular issues or problems. Because they can deal with
the concept in such a matter-of-fact way without first
needing to lay out a wider theoretical basis suggests that
the universal or spiritual priesthood of all believers was
not an obscure teaching, but rather was widely accepted
and understood by those who read their various texts.
They understood that the whole Church was a priestly
people and, while there were those who presided publicly
in worship, all offered a spiritual sacrifice on account of
their spiritual identity and their relationship with Christ.
It seems that the priesthood of the baptized was no foreign notion, but rather was understood and carried over
from the ideas laid out in the New Testament.82 Other
issues dominated the life and thought of the early church
and its theologians: the Trinity, for example, or the person and work of Christ. That the priesthood of Christian
believers does not demand the same attention suggests
that it was generally understood and embraced.

73

Irenaeus against Heresies 2.32.4 (ANF 1:409).

74

On Prayer 28 (ANF 3:690).

79

75

An Exhortation to Chastity 7 (ANF 4:54). See Eastwood, 75.

Eastwood, 75.

80

76

An Exhortation to Chastity 7 (ANF 4:54).

An Exhortation on Chastity 7 (ANF 4:54).

77

An Exhortation to Chastity 7 (ANF 4:54).

78

See Eastwood, 73–75.

THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD

Homilies on Leviticus 9:9 as quoted in Eastwood, 77. See his comments on Origen, 76–80.
81

82

|

Eastwood, 80.

III. PRIESTHOOD IN THE EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH

excommunications between bishops in the early church,
all equally boasting of the legitimacy of their succession
and office, “If the unity of the church rested on the bishops and their apostolic succession, it rested rather insecurely.”87 Moreover, when Cyprian says that the Lord’s
Supper is a sacrifice of the Lord, and that the power to
offer this rests in the bishop who sacrifices the Lord’s
passion, the door is open for a change in the way those
in the public office are perceived — now not simply a
distinction but the start of an elevation. The growing
consensus that priesthood equals clergy locates the responsibility for maintaining the unity of the church, the
purity of its teaching and the consistency or regularity
of its worship, all in the clerical priest who offers up the
eucharistic sacrifice. It is a powerful combination, and
while no one may have intended to overshadow the idea
of the universal priesthood, the fact is that a new tone
was struck and a new direction was set. The complementarity of the service of the public office with the service
offered by all in the royal priesthood would become
skewed over time.
Even as Cyprian set the direction that Christianity
would follow for the most part on the matter of priesthood, another church father revisited key New Testament themes, leaving ideas that would be revived long
after him. Augustine (A.D. 354–430)88 cast important
light on what happens in Christian Baptism. Three blessings are given: forgiveness of sins, membership in the
body of Christ, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Augustine knew, of course, that Baptism did not instantly
produce mature Christians. But Baptism’s blessings were
real. Here is real forgiveness as one is delivered from the
power of sin. Here is real membership in the Body, as
one finds a place to grow and develop, to resist sin and
gain spiritual strength. Here the Spirit grants us a place
to grow and develop. Although the Christian is baptized
only once, the sign and substance of Baptism remain as
a reminder of the grace given all life long. No wonder, as
Augustine recounted in his Confessions, that he wished
he had been baptized sooner.89 (Augustine describes how
his mother had followed the common but unfortunate
practice of delaying Baptism lest sins then committed
should ruin its effect — a premise and practice that
he rejects.)
87
Werner Elert, Eucharist and Church Fellowship in the First Four Centuries, trans. Norman Nagel (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1966, 2003), 53.

23

Augustine tied the priesthood of believers to the
high priesthood of Christ, declaring with the psalmist
that he longed for the most menial service among the
people of God because it is Christ’s priesthood, the One
who is “‘the mediator between God and men, the man
Christ Jesus.’ This is the people whom the apostle Peter
calls ‘a holy people, a royal priesthood.’”90 Augustine saw
that Baptism was a priestly action of Christ as well as a
priestly action of the whole church,91 and it was Christ’s
washing that made the faithful also priests by virtue of
the faith given and the place they had in the Church,
the Body of Christ. Priests do not empower Baptism.
Christ does: “My origin is Christ, my root is Christ, my
head is Christ. … For I believe, not in the minister by
whose hands I am baptized, but in Him who justifieth
the ungodly, that my faith may be counted to me as
righteousness.”92 The baptized child of God now enjoys
a new identity with God as Father, and also has an array
of brothers and sisters, all marked by the cross of Christ
in Baptism. The Word proclaims that Baptism has a
wide effect: It not only changes the one being washed,
but as the people hear, they recognize themselves as
ones still marked by the cross, people of God, His royal
priesthood.
At the baptisms in Augustine’s day, confirmation also
often occurred along with the giving of chrism (anointing with oil). It was done in a single ceremony and
involved linked actions. Once a person had been made a
member of the Body and given a place in the Church in
Baptism, confirmation then validated that identity and
sealed the person as one now equipped for service in the
Church and its mission, as God’s Spirit would provide.
The chrism was yet another sign that the person was
equipped for service in Christ’s kingdom. Commenting
on Revelation 20:6, Augustine wrote: “This clearly does
not mean only the bishops and presbyters, who are now
called by the distinctive name of ‘priests’ in the Church;
but just as we call all Christians ‘Christs’ in virtue of
their sacramental anointing (chrisma) so we call them
all ‘priests’ because they are members of the one Priest.
And the apostle Peter says of them that they are ‘a holy
people, a royal priesthood.’”93
Just as ordination consecrated a person to the Office
of the Public Ministry, so here those confirmed and
90
Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, trans. Henry Bettenson (New York: Penguin Books, 1972), 17.5.728.

The door to change was opened in the third century
by Cyprian (ca. A.D. 200–258), who, because of the circumstances in which he lived and worked, came to emphasize the importance of priests in the public office and
to cast what they did in a slightly different light. Eastwood summarizes Cyprian’s view: “He conceived that
the bishops were a special priesthood and had a special
sacrifice to offer. So the High Priestly Race gave place to a
High Priestly Class, and the spiritual sacrifices gave place
to an actual sacrifice offered to God in the Eucharist.”83
The earliest Christians were largely Jews, and it was natural that they should understand priesthood and sacrifice
against the background first of the Old Testament, and
then the New Testament image of Christ along with the
material from the New Testament texts. As Gentiles now
came to the faith in increasing numbers, they did not
share those same background assumptions, but often saw
things in a different light. They were also familiar with
Greek temple worship and its priests. The sacrifice for
sins by Christ, the great High Priest who offered Himself,
was difficult to grasp. And to say that all believers were
priests spiritually could be somewhat confusing. If sacrifices are spiritual, it might seem that there are no real
priests — that Christianity is a priestless faith.
In contrast, the religious practices and political hierarchy of the empire and its cities were familiar to the new
converts. The chief cities had temples and priests and
Rome had a well-structured political order. Consequently, as Eastwood notes, over time “imperial rule became
the pattern upon which ecclesiastical supervision was
based.”84 As a result, the church came to insist not only
on particular teachings — orthodoxy — but also on particular practices and enforced both teaching and practice
with equal vigor. A violation of unity in practice resulted
in excommunication as quickly as did a violation of
orthodox doctrine.85
Cyprian was part of this. He insisted on a pattern of
unity that includes both doctrine and practice, seeing
its guarantee in the office of the bishop. Speaking for
the church, he could simply say that we do have those
in authority — bishops as well as other clergy — who
are a kind of special priesthood. This is not the royal
priesthood of all the baptized. Cyprian’s priests have
a special sacrifice to offer: not simply the sacrifice of
prayer or worship or Christian life, but the sacrifice
83

Eastwood, 80. See his full discussion of Cyprian, 80–90.

84

Eastwood, 81.

85

See Eastwood, 81–82.

THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD

|

given this one-time chrism were fitted for service in
various ways in the Body of Christ. The sacrifice to be
made might come in the extreme: martyrdom. It would
also be a life marked by humility and doxology for what
Christ gives. As Augustine put it in The City of God:
To this God we owe our service — what in Greek
is called latria — whether in the various sacraments or in ourselves. For we are his temple,
collectively, and as individuals. ... When we lift up
our hearts to him, our heart is his altar. We propitiate him by our priest, his only-begotten Son. We
sacrifice blood-stained victims to him when we
fight for truth ‘as far as the shedding our blood’.
We burn the sweetest incense for him, when we
are in his sight on fire with devout and holy love.
We vow to him and offer to him the gifts he has
given us, and the gift of ourselves. ... We offer
to him, on the altar of the heart, the sacrifice of
humility and praise, and the flame on the altar is
the burning fire of charity.94
Christians then are called to sacrifice themselves for
Christian unity, living for and submitting to others in
love, even as they ever strive to know God. In His praise
we find delight, “for Thou hast formed us for Thyself,
and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.”95
The sense of connection and the certainty found in faith
also bring a sense of freedom, with the believer dependent on Christ alone and no other mediator. “Look, the
days which were foretold have now arrived. There is no
priest in the line of Aaron, and any man who belongs
to his line sees the Christian sacrifice prevailing all
over the world.”96 Because the Gospel is catholic, the
priesthood created by it is catholic or universal, and the
message proclaimed and the teaching given are catholic — a universal message offered for people everywhere
to understand.
Augustine leaves no doubt who Christians are and
what they are about: priests claimed by God for service
as God gives opportunity. To be sure, the body of Christ
is served by those in the public office, but this is service
that leads hearts, minds, and lives to action. Being in
the royal priesthood is no spectator job with Christians
standing by. From the time Augustine heard the words
‘tolle lege,” that is, “take up and read,”97 he was active —
94

City of God 10.3.375.

91

Eastwood, 92–93.

95

Confessions of St. Augustine 1.1 (NPNF1 1.45).

See Eastwood’s chapter on Augustine, 91–101.

92

In Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.7–8 (NPNF1 4:522).

96

City of God 17.5.726.

89

Eastwood, 92, quotes from The Confessions of St. Augustine 1.11.

93

City of God 20.10.919.

97

Confessions of St. Augustine 1.1 (NPNF1 1:127).

|

III. PRIESTHOOD IN THE EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH

2019 Convention Workbook

25

THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD

|

Church leadership had been important from early
on as the apostolic fathers and their successors handed
down the message of Christ and the apostles, even as
the New Testament texts were being written and then
collected. As time passed and as the church reached out
and grew in number — a good thing! — leadership in
the person of the bishops shouldered any number of
tasks to maintain the church’s identity and continuity. It
is understandable that the bishop would be raised up and
respected for the things he did. He brought people into
the church in Baptism, he confirmed Baptism with a laying on of hands in confirmation, and he brought people
into communion with Christ in the Supper that followed.
The bishop was with the people in these important steps.
But Cyprian went further and emphasized that church
and office were largely indistinguishable: “[T]hey are
the church who are a people united to the priest and the
flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to
know that the bishop is in the church and the church is
in the bishop.”86 So what is done by those in the public
office and what is offered is now marked also by a definite note of authority. (Constantine’s later fourth-century
involvement would serve to underscore this approach in
which efforts to be both identified by and led by theology
were bolstered also by organization or practice.)
To be sure, those in the public office, especially bishops, were important for guiding the faith and teaching
the saving truth, and bishops served as a useful network
for a far-flung church. Yet the bishops also failed to fully
unify the church. As Werner Elert says after tracing the
86
Epistle 48.8 (ANF 5.374–75) (To Florentius Pupiananus, on Calumniators; Epistle 46 in the Oxford edition). This echoes Ignatius: “Wherever the Bishop appears, there let the multitude of the people be; just as
where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church.” However, Ignatius
centers his view of the bishop on his eucharistic role, whereby Christ is
present in His body. See Letter to the Smyrneans (ANF 1.184).

III. PRIESTHOOD IN THE EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH

88

THE ROYAL PRIESTHOOD

of the Eucharist. Putting the best intention on this,
Cyprian hoped to answer questions. Yet we see here
a new understanding and emphasis on both “priest”
and “sacrifice.” Cyprian opened the way in which the
church would come to understand clergy as well as the
universal priesthood. Ironically, even as an organization
and as this distinction began to grow, the church was
developing a way to meet both external and internal
challenges later in the Middle Ages. The groundwork
laid here and the distinction that emerged would be both
a plus and a minus for the church. As the church grew,
it could maintain continuity and consistency only by
selecting a small number of leaders and investing them
with significant authority.

24

at that moment taking up the Scriptures through which
God drew him to faith, and thereafter taking up the tasks
of teaching and interpreting the faith even as the world
around seemed to be coming unglued and Christians
sought to understand what their citizenship in a far
greater city meant.
Augustine was not forgotten through the Middle
Ages, but seeds that Cyprian planted would grow to
provide order and authority in ways he himself probably never imagined. The introduction of indulgences
— initially simply a sign of the intent to change one’s
life as prescribed by the priest, but eventually a claim
of forgiveness offered for sins themselves, as offered by
the institutional church embodied in Rome — boosted
the image and authority of clergy in the public office. It
did so at the expense of the mutual consolation of the
brethren, once a staple of life in the church. “See how
they love one another,” Tertullian once wrote, and there
is no greater love than to speak the forgiving words of
the Gospel one to another. But while that was still there
“on paper,” the matter of confessing and restoring and
upbuilding would for all practical purposes become the
responsibility of clergy alone over the centuries between
the end of the early church era and the evangelical
reformation.
At the beginning of the fourth century, at the time
of the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325), Rome had neither
legal nor de facto superiority over other bishoprics and
other centers of Christianity. Yet in the centuries that
followed, Rome’s status grew. The move of the capital
to Constantinople in the East left a hole in the Western
Mediterranean, and the eventual collapse of the Roman
Empire left a vacuum that the church of Rome came to
fill. The institutional church now filled a double role: to
evangelize and to acculturate. By the end of the early
church era, while the East-West perspective through
the Mediterranean basin was not ignored, friction with
the church in the East prompted Rome to cast its eyes
in another direction, to look north into Europe and to
new people who needed to hear the message the Church
had to bring — people who could be knit into a new
kind of empire.
Gregory the Great (Gregory I, pope in A.D. 590–604)
was a visionary leader who saw both the need and the
opportunity to change the focus of western Christianity.98 From Rome he sent out ordained clergy as well
as monks to serve as missionaries. As they took the
98

See Eastwood, 105–9.

III. PRIESTHOOD IN THE EARLY AND MEDIEVAL CHURCH

26